Debate contribution: Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043772

Read the official Assembly record

Text

First, I acknowledge the sensitivity of the subject. I am aware that a number of parents and children have had very harrowing experiences of either restraint or seclusion in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is not my intention to be critical of anyone else's view on the issue this evening. Also, given the nature of the area, whilst we do not support the immediate repeal of article 4(1)(c), it is not our intention to divide the House on the matter this evening. As the Chair mentioned, members of the Education Committee heard significant evidence on the subject, and, in the Committee, I have described some of the real-world examples as "horrendous". However, what is also clear is that those incidents are in no way the norm and are exceptional. As the Chair mentioned, my party tabled an amendment to the motion at Committee. It is worth reading out because it covered the necessary elements that some stakeholders want to see without the repeal of article 4(1)(c). It stated the following:

"to reiterate the guidance underpinning the exceptional character of article 4(1)(c) of the Education (NI) Order 1998 found in DE circular 2021/13, which states that restraint should only be used as a measure of last resort to preserve the dignity and respect of all concerned, it should never be used as a form of punishment or to make a child behave and never deliberately cause pain/injury to a pupil; all instances of the use of reasonable force/restraint should be recorded, parents/carers should be informed and follow-up support provided to the pupil and staff involved;" —

and there should be a departmental commitment to data gathering and monitoring to review the special and wider school estate to address, as the Member opposite mentioned —

"the environmental factors that exacerbate distress behaviours by pupils; and to commission an update to the ETI report on persistent and challenging behaviours in special schools."

We felt that our amendment covered the necessary areas without repealing article 4(1)(c). Clearly, as has been mentioned, the other parties had a different view. A range of stakeholders also has concern about the impact that the removal of article 4(1)(c) could have on teaching staff. For example, the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC) wrote to the Education Committee stating that removal of that article would create a climate of fear around restraint where teachers would be hesitant to intervene even when it was essential. Recently, NASUWT gave evidence and said:

"We will always need to use the lowest level possible. When it comes to restrictive practices, I do not think that any of our members, whether they are teachers or support staff, wants to use restrictive practices at all, nor do they want to use reasonable force."

I agree with both those bodies. It may be interesting to note that the Department for Education in England recently consulted on the use of reasonable force, which is the equivalent of our article 4(1)(c), and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in responding to the consultation, did not highlight a need for the repeal of the existing legislation in England. Teaching is a challenging and rewarding profession. My party will continue to support —.

I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for that intervention. I take his point. I fully accept that lessons could be learned from the youth settings. I have no issues with that whatsoever. I pay tribute to our teachers for the amazing job that they do to educate our children in Northern Ireland. They should never fear having to intervene in a classroom situation because, in doing so, they might face legal or criminal action. One simple example of that would be where a teacher blocks a pupil's path if they are trying to leave the school premises without permission and where safeguarding protocols would apply. What we need is guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion that is rights-based, safeguards children and teachers and is workable in a school environment. I certainly hope that the Minister, in his speech, will reflect where we are with the accompanying guidance, which the Chair of the Education Committee referenced. I do not believe that immediate repeal is the path that we should pursue at this time for the reasons that I have highlighted. Instead, we should work to improve training, support and, particularly, guidance in that area.

728 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification